Replace CONSTANT_FUNCTION by CONSTANT

Convert CONSTANT_FUNCTION to CONSTANT

R=yangguo@chromium.org

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=15858

[Toon Verwaest, 2013-07-23 11:59:40]

PTAL

[Yang, 2013-07-24 11:59:44]

there is one thing that I don't understand...

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/bootstrapper.cc
File src/bootstrapper.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/bootstrapper.cc#newcode1098
src/bootstrapper.cc:1098: Object::FORCE_TAGGED, JSReceiver::FORCE_FIELD));
ha. I like this enum name.

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc
File src/ic.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc#newcode1318
src/ic.cc:1318: if (constant->IsConsString()) return Handle<Code>::null();
why do you check for cons string here?

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc#newcode1529
src/ic.cc:1529: if (constant->IsConsString()) return Handle<Code>::null();
ditto.

[Toon Verwaest, 2013-07-24 12:25:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc
File src/ic.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc#newcode1318
src/ic.cc:1318: if (constant->IsConsString()) return Handle<Code>::null();
Because we cannot embed cons strings into code. I'll add a comment + TODO.

On 2013/07/24 11:59:45, Yang wrote:
> why do you check for cons string here?

[Yang, 2013-07-24 12:28:57]

On 2013/07/24 12:25:17, Toon Verwaest wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc
> File src/ic.cc (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/19485008/diff/1/src/ic.cc#newcode1318
> src/ic.cc:1318: if (constant->IsConsString()) return Handle<Code>::null();
> Because we cannot embed cons strings into code. I'll add a comment + TODO.
> 
> On 2013/07/24 11:59:45, Yang wrote:
> > why do you check for cons string here?

lgtm.

[Toon Verwaest, 2013-07-24 12:35:04]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r15858 (presubmit successful).